ACA App
Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia
Home | About us | Editorial Board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Submission | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
Users online: 562 Small font size Default font size Increase font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page
 


 

 
     
    Advanced search
 

 
 
     
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
   Methodology
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed882    
    Printed8    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded134    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 34-40
A randomized controlled trial comparing the myocardial protective effects of isoflurane with propofol in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass, assessed by changes in N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide


Department of Anaesthesia, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication11-Jan-2018
 

   Abstract 


Objective: The objective of the study is to compare the myocardial protective effects of isoflurane with propofol in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), the cardio protection been assessed by changes in N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide (NT proBNP). Methodology and Design: This study is designed as a participant blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial. Setting: Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, India. Participants: Patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery on CPB. Intervention: Anesthesia was maintained with 0.8–1.2 end tidal concentrations of isoflurane in the isoflurane group and in the propofol group, anesthesia was maintained with propofol infusion as described by Roberts et al. Measurements: Hemodynamic data were recorded at frequent intervals during the surgery and up to 24 h in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The other variables that were measured include duration of mechanical ventilation, dose and duration of inotropes in ICU, (inotrope score), duration of ICU stay, NT proBNP levels before induction and 24 h postoperatively, creatine kinase-MB levels in the immediate postoperative, first and second day. Results: Mean heart rate was significantly higher in propofol group during sternotomy, (P = 0.021). Propofol group had a significantly more number of patients requiring nitroglycerine in the prebypass period (P = 0.01). The increase in NT proBNP from preoperative to postoperative value was lesser in the isoflurane group compared to propofol even though the difference was not statistically significant. The requirement of phenylephrine to maintain mean arterial pressure within 20% of baseline, mechanical ventilation duration, inotrope use, duration of ICU stay and hospital stay were found to be similar in both groups. Conclusion: Propofol exhibit comparable myocardial protective effect like that of isoflurane in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Considering the unproven mortality benefit of isoflurane and the improved awareness of green OT concept, propofol may be the ideal alternative to volatile anesthetics, at least in patients with good left ventricular function.

Keywords: Coronary artery bypass grafting, isoflurane, myocardial protection, N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide, propofol

How to cite this article:
Kuppuswamy B, Davis K, Sahajanandan R, Ponniah M. A randomized controlled trial comparing the myocardial protective effects of isoflurane with propofol in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass, assessed by changes in N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide. Ann Card Anaesth 2018;21:34-40

How to cite this URL:
Kuppuswamy B, Davis K, Sahajanandan R, Ponniah M. A randomized controlled trial comparing the myocardial protective effects of isoflurane with propofol in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass, assessed by changes in N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide. Ann Card Anaesth [serial online] 2018 [cited 2020 Oct 24];21:34-40. Available from: https://www.annals.in/text.asp?2018/21/1/34/223040





   Introduction Top


Perioperative myocardial ischemia during elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) can occur in the prebypass period, during bypass and in the postbypass period. Reperfusion of the myocardium after an ischemia induces myocardial apoptosis and resultant increase in infarct size through the reperfusion injury, despite the restoration of coronary blood flow.[1],[2]

To minimize the myocardial ischemia during CABG, multiple strategies are often employed by the perioperative team. Volatile anesthetics have been shown to confer myocardial protection against reperfusion injury through anesthetic-induced pre- and post-conditioning mechanism.[3],[4] Animal studies have shown that propofol offers myocardial protection from ischemia-reperfusion injuries.[5]

We wanted to evaluate the myocardial protective effects of isoflurane versus propofol in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Cardio protection was assessed by changes in N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide and creatinine kinase-MB (CK-MB).[6],[7]

Aim and objectives

The primary aim of this study was to compare the two anesthetic regimens, consisting of propofol and Isoflurane on the degree of myocardial preservation, which were analyzed by changes in the perioperative levels of N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide (NT proBNP) and CK-MB.

Secondary objectives include hemodynamic stability, inotropic support requirement and duration of endotracheal intubation beyond overnight ventilation as well as Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay.


   Methodology Top


This was a prospective randomized study which was approved by the institutional ethics committee. 52 patients were recruited into the study after a written informed consent. This study deals with two different anesthetic regimens, Isoflurane (Group I) versus propofol (Group P) in a patient undergoing CABG with CPB. Based on the study by De Hert et al.,[8] a sample size of 26 was required in each group. Consenting adults between 18 and 70 years scheduled to undergo elective CABG were recruited into the study. While patients with reduced left ventricular (LV) function (ejection fraction <40%), patients with recent myocardial infarction (<6 weeks), hemodynamic instability requiring medical or mechanical supports, acute congestive cardiac failure, chronic kidney disease as indicated by serum creatinine >1.5 mg% and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as shown by FEV1 <50% were excluded from the study.

Anesthesia protocol

All preoperative cardiac medication except ACE inhibitors was continued till the morning of surgery. Patients were premedicated with lorazepam 2 mg and omeprazole 20 mg on the night before the surgery along with lorazepam 2 mg 60 min before induction. For patients above 60 years, lorazepam 1 mg was given at night instead of 2 mg. Anesthesia technique was standardized with midazolam (0.15–0.3 mg/kg) and fentanyl (5–10 μg/kg) for induction and endotracheal intubation.

Monitoring used during the CABG procedure include pulse oximetry, ECG, arterial blood pressure (both radial and femoral), Bi-spectral index monitoring, capnography, central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring, temperature, and urine output.

After endotracheal intubation, anesthesia was maintained according to the protocols in two groups. In isoflurane group, anesthesia was maintained with 0.8-1.2 end tidal concentrations of isoflurane and in propofol group, anesthesia was maintained with propofol infusion as described by Roberts et al., which is 10 mg/kg/h for the first 10 min followed by 8 mg/kg/h for the next 10 min and thereafter at 6 mg/kg/h.[9] Both groups received fentanyl infusion at 1 μg/kg/h and incremental dose of fentanyl were given to blunt the surgical stress response. Anesthesia was titrated to maintain a BIS value about 40–60 throughout the CABG procedure. The administration of vasoactive drugs (phenylephrine/ephedrine) or Glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) for maintenance of hemodynamics during the prebypass period were done in both groups whenever required.

CABG was performed under CPB with the pump flow of 2–2.4 L/m2/min under mild hypothermia of 32°C–34°C in both groups with the Activated Clotting Time (ACT) maintained >480 s throughout the bypass period. Anesthesia was maintained with either propofol infusion or with isoflurane through the CPB oxygenator during bypass with BIS target of 40–60. St. Thomas root cardioplegia was used for inducing cardiac arrest in both the groups and it was repeated every 20 min. Perfusion pressure during CPB was maintained between 50 and 70 mmHg with intermittent phenylephrine or by noradrenaline infusion. Hematocrit was maintained >21% during CPB with or without adding packed cells and the acid base management during CPB was done by alpha stat method.

Adrenaline infusion was started at the beginning of the last proximal anastomosis, by that time the heart has already started beating after the release of cross clamp. In all the patients, adrenaline was started at a dose of 0.1 mcg/kg/min as per our institutional protocol and surgeon's preference. The adrenaline infusion was then titrated down according to hemodynamics. After making sure that the patients were adequately rewarmed (nasopharyngeal temperature of 36.0°C) along with normal acid blood gas measurement, Patients were weaned off from the bypass and the residual heparin was then reversed with protamine at the dose of 1:1 ratio and if needed, additional dose of protamine were given if the postprotamine ACT was more than baseline ACT. Post-CABG procedure the patients were shifted to ICU where the patients were weaned from inotropic support and ventilator support as per the institutional protocol.

Data collection

Baseline heart rate and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded before induction with CVP postintubation after securing the central venous access. Hemodynamic data are then recorded at frequent intervals during the intraoperative period starting from induction, intubation, skin incision, sternotomy, and chest closure. In the ICU, vital signs were monitored at 1 h, 6 h, 12 h, and last at 24 h. The other variables that were measured include duration of mechanical ventilation, dose and duration of inotropes in ICU, (inotrope score), duration of ICU stay, NT proBNP levels before induction and 24 h postoperatively, creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) levels in the immediate postoperative, first and second day.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were obtained for all study variables. All patient characteristics and other variables such as hemodynamic data, inotropic support, level of biochemical marker, and postoperative ICU stay were compared between the study groups using Mann–Whitney test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses was done using SPSS version 16.0 (IBM Corporation, USA) for Microsoft windows.


   Results Top


The two groups in this study were designated as group P and group I for propofol and isoflurane respectively. The total size of the study population is 46 with 23 in each group. The patients recruited in both groups included single, double as well as triple vessel disease (1:2:20 in Group P vs. 0:3:20 in Group I). The demographic data, comorbid conditions, New York Heart Association functional status, CPB time, aortic cross clamp time were comparable between the two groups [Table 1].
Table 1: Demographic data

Click here to view


The mean heart rate recorded at various points in the perioperative period from skin incision up to 24 h into ICU was almost similar in both groups. However, the mean heart rate was significantly higher in propofol group during sternotomy, (P = 0.021) [Table 2]a and [Table 2]b.
Table 2:

Click here to view
Table 3: Phenylephrine requirements

Click here to view


Fifteen patients in propofol group and 17 patients in isoflurane group received phenylephrine during prebypass period and the requirement of phenylephrine to maintain MAP within 20% of baseline was not statistically different between the groups (P = 0.079) by Mann–Whitney test [Table 3] and [Table 4].
Table 4: Mann–Whitney test statistics for phenylephrine

Click here to view
Table 5: Nitroglycerin requirement

Click here to view


Group P had a significantly more number of patients requiring GTN in the prebypass period (P = 0.01) (20 patients in Group P and 14 patients in Group I in the prebypass period, respectively) [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7].
Table 6: Mann–Whitney test statistics for GTN

Click here to view
Table 7: Two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for GTN

Click here to view
Table 8: Descriptive statistics (N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide)

Click here to view


Vasopressor requirement (Phenylephrine and noradrenaline) requirement during the CPB was similar between the groups. Inotropic requirement during the postbypass period (inotrope score) was similar in both groups and it was not found to be statistically significant by Mann–Whitney test.

The mean value of preoperative NT proBNP was 258.81 ± 246.15in propofol group and 355.38 ± 362.58 in isoflurane group, respectively (P = 0.235). The mean value of postoperative NT proBNP was 2108.43 ± 1560.82 in propofol group and 2276.5 ± 2219.38 in isoflurane group (P = 0.709). The mean of difference between the postoperative increases from preoperative level was 1849.62 ± 1453.37 in propofol group P and 1920.97 ± 2150.278 in isoflurane group (P = 0.287). The mean of % increase of NT proBNP from preoperative baseline value to postoperative value was 88.2% in propofol group P and 64.1% in isoflurane group I (P = 0.318). These differences were not found to be statistically significant [Table 8], [Table 9], [Table 10].
Table 9: Mann–Whitney test statistics (N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide)

Click here to view
Table 10: Two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test statistics (N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide)

Click here to view
Table 11: Creatine kinase-MB levels

Click here to view


The increase in NT proBNP from preoperative to postoperative value was less in the isoflurane group compared to propofol even though the difference is not statistically significant (6-fold increase in isoflurane group compared to 8-fold increase in propofol group).

The mean values of CK-MB levels in the immediate postoperative period was 63.43 ± 15.86 versus 70.43 ± 20.13 (P = 0.184), while on first postoperative day, it was 41.34 ± 25.14 versus 43.69 ± 29.60 (P = 0.709) and on second postoperative day, it was, 34.91 ± 13.69 versus 40 ± 22.03 (P = 0.517) in propofol group, and isoflurane group, respectively. Statistical analysis using Mann–Whitney test, Kolmogrov–Smirnov and Wald–Wolfowitz test showed that changes in CK-MB levels were not statistically significant between both groups [Table 11], [Table 12], [Table 13].{Table 12}
Table 13: Two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test statistics creatine kinase-MB

Click here to view
{Table 14}

Mechanical ventilation duration, inotrope use, duration of ICU stay and hospital stay were found to be similar in both groups.


   Discussion Top


We did a prospective randomized control study to compare the myocardial protective effects of two anesthetic agents (propofol vs. isoflurane) in patients undergoing myocardial revascularization under CPB using NT proBNP and CK-MB as the markers. BIS monitoring was used apart from other ASA standard monitoring as the incidence of awareness under anesthesia in cardiac surgeries is almost 5–15 fold higher when compared to noncardiac surgery.[10] In view of differences in the “on pump“ metabolism of propofol and isoflurane and unpredictable extrahepatic metabolism of propofol, BIS value was used as a better quantifiable measure of effect site concentration for assessment of depth of anesthesia. Propofol or volatile anesthetics were administered continuously throughout the CABG as it was shown to exhibit better myocardial protective effect rather than the intermittent administration.[11]

The patient's demographic data, comorbid condition, number of diseased coronaries, ejection fraction, CPB time, aortic cross clamp time, and number of coronaries grafted were similar in both groups.

The hemodynamic parameters recorded at various points in the perioperative period from skin incision up to 24 h into ICU were almost similar in both groups. It is purely coincidental that the hemodynamic data in both groups seemed to be identical, which could be due to the better preoperative optimization achieved with beta blockers in the patients in both the groups. On comparison of hemodynamic data during the perioperative period, the mean heart rate during sternotomy was significantly higher in propofol group and the MAP during the aortic cannulation time was higher in propofol group P requiring frequent intervention with (nitro-glycerine) GTN. A significantly more number of patients in propofol group received GTN compared to isoflurane group during the prebypass period. The hemodynamic changes that occur during the prebypass period with the two anesthetic agents may be explained by relatively better antinociceptive effect of isoflurane over propofol.[12],[13] The increased response seen with propofol might not be due to awareness since all the patients were premedicated adequately with lorazepam and induced with midazolam. We did not use a bolus of propofol before the initiation of propofol infusion. The 3 compartment model requires a bolus before the infusion. We may not have reached the target effect site concentration with propofol without the bolus dose at sternotomy. The maintenance of anesthesia with propofol infusion according to 10-8-6 protocol of Roberts et al. was found satisfactory.[9] We did not find any difficulty in maintaining the BIS between 40–60 with this regimen in any of our patients.

The base line values and the postoperative values of NT proBNP in both group were found to be almost similar. Postoperative increase of NT proBNP in propofol group was 8 fold while the raise was 6 fold in the isoflurane group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Similar results were observed in CK-MB level measured in the postoperative period between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in inotrope score; mechanically ventilated days and ICU stay between the groups.

Our study findings suggest that the myocardial protective effects of propofol and isoflurane were comparable as the cardiac biomarker changes in the perioperative period were statistically insignificant. The perioperative changes in cardiac markers in our study corroborates with the study done by Flier et al. and Xia et al. where cardiac troponin I was used as cardiac marker.[14],[15]

The mechanism of myocardial protective effect of propofol is different from volatile anesthetics and it may be attributed to its antioxidant effect, Na-H channel blockade, sarcolemmal Ca channel blockade, inhibitory effect of propofol on MPTP opening and ability to increase the protein kinase C activity in cardiomyocytes.[2],[16] Our study did not show a significant myocardial protective effect of isoflurane over propofol unlike the study by De Hert et al., which may be attributed to variable preconditioning potencies of volatile anesthetic that increases from isoflurane over sevoflurane to desflurane as shown by Redel et al.

Lange et al. in his study on desflurane postconditioning effect showed that beta blockers, which have a class 1 recommendation for perioperative myocardial ischemia prevention, may reduce the volatile anesthetic induced postconditioning aspect of myocardial protection.[17],[18] The degree of reduction of myocardial protection by the volatile anesthetics in the presence of beta blockers, whether it is the same or different to different volatile anesthetics is also exactly not known.

This study shows that propofol exhibit comparable myocardial protective effect as that of isoflurane in CABG because surgical techniques of myocardial protection between the two groups were identical. This might be due to relatively decreased preconditioning effect of isoflurane over newer volatile anesthetics. The variable pre- and post-conditioning effect of isoflurane in the presence of beta blockers may also contribute.

As reviewed by Nigro Neto et al., there is increased chance of operating room pollution during CPB without the proper scavenging system.[19] This would have happened in our study also with volatile anesthesia maintenance because scavenging system was not part of our CPB machine.

Limitations

Failure to derive any meaningful conclusion on duration of mechanical ventilation due to our Institutional policy to extubate the patients the next day morning.

We did not measure the cardiac index which could have reinforced the cardiac markers changes that occurred with two different anesthetic regimens since it is not a part of our institutional practice to use cardiac output monitor or transesophageal echocardiography in patients with adequate LV function.

Our data showed a wide range of nTProBNP values in each group. Even though all the patients recruited in our study had adequate LV systolic function, the differing levels could reflect varying degrees of diastolic dysfunction without features of failure in our patient population.

In spite of BIS not being totally validated during hypothermia, it is presumed that the decrease in BIS values would occur concurrently in both groups since there is a decrease in anesthetic requirement during hypothermia.


   Conclusion Top


Propofol exhibit myocardial protective effects comparable to that of isoflurane in patients undergoing CABG. The relatively better myocardial protective effect of isoflurane was not getting replicated neither in morbidity nor in mortality benefit unlike newer agents such as sevoflurane and desflurane.[11] Given this unproven mortality benefit and improved awareness of green OT concept,[20],[21] propofol may be the ideal alternative to volatile anesthetics, at least in patients with good LV function.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was supported by IRB Christian Medical College, Vellore.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Mentzer RM Jr. Myocardial protection in heart surgery. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 2011;16:290-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Suleiman MS, Zacharowski K, Angelini GD. Inflammatory response and cardioprotection during open-heart surgery: The importance of anaesthetics. Br J Pharmacol 2008;153:21-33.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Zaugg M, Lucchinetti E, Garcia C, Pasch T, Spahn DR, Schaub MC, et al. Anaesthetics and cardiac preconditioning. Part II. Clinical implications. Br J Anaesth 2003;91:566-76.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Zaugg M, Lucchinetti E, Uecker M, Pasch T, Schaub MC. Anaesthetics and cardiac preconditioning. Part I. Signalling and cytoprotective mechanisms. Br J Anaesth 2003;91:551-65.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Ko SH, Yu CW, Lee SK, Choe H, Chung MJ, Kwak YG, et al. Propofol attenuates ischemia-reperfusion injury in the isolated rat heart. Anesth Analg 1997;85:719-24.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Preeshagul I, Gharbaran R, Jeong KH, Abdel-Razek A, Lee LY, Elman E, et al. Potential biomarkers for predicting outcomes in CABG cardiothoracic surgeries. J Cardiothorac Surg 2013;8:176.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Haaf P, Balmelli C, Reichlin T, Twerenbold R, Reiter M, Meissner J, et al. N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide in the early evaluation of suspected acute myocardial infarction. Am J Med 2011;124:731-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
De Hert SG, Van der Linden PJ, Cromheecke S, Meeus R, ten Broecke PW, De Blier IG, et al. Choice of primary anesthetic regimen can influence Intensive Care Unit length of stay after coronary surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Anesthesiology 2004;101:9-20.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Roberts FL, Dixon J, Lewis GT, Tackley RM, Prys-Roberts C. Induction and maintenance of propofol anaesthesia. A manual infusion scheme. Anaesthesia 1988;43 Suppl:14-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Sandhu K, Dash H. Awareness during anaesthesia. Indian J Anaesth 2009;53:148-57.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
11.
Landoni G, Bignami E, Oliviero F, Zangrillo A. Halogenated anaesthetics and cardiac protection in cardiac and non-cardiac anaesthesia. Ann Card Anaesth 2009;12:4-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
12.
Kungys G, Kim J, Jinks SL, Atherley RJ, Antognini JF. Propofol produces immobility via action in the ventral horn of the spinal cord by a GABAergic mechanism. Anesth Analg 2009;108:1531-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Antognini JF, Carstens E. Increasing isoflurane from 0.9 to 1.1 minimum alveolar concentration minimally affects dorsal horn cell responses to noxious stimulation. Anesthesiology 1999;90:208-14.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Flier S, Post J, Concepcion AN, Kappen TH, Kalkman CJ, Buhre WF, et al. Influence of propofol-opioid vs. isoflurane-opioid anaesthesia on postoperative troponin release in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Br J Anaesth 2010;105:122-30.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Xia Z, Huang Z, Ansley DM. Large-dose propofol during cardiopulmonary bypass decreases biochemical markers of myocardial injury in coronary surgery patients: A comparison with isoflurane. Anesth Analg 2006;103:527-32.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Mathur S, Farhangkhgoee P, Karmazyn M. Cardioprotective effects of propofol and sevoflurane in ischemic and reperfused rat hearts: Role of K(ATP) channels and interaction with the sodium-hydrogen exchange inhibitor HOE 642 (cariporide). Anesthesiology 1999;91:1349-60.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Lange M, Redel A, Lotz C, Smul TM, Blomeyer C, Frank A, et al. Desflurane-induced postconditioning is mediated by beta-adrenergic signaling: Role of beta 1- and beta 2-adrenergic receptors, protein kinase A, and calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II. Anesthesiology 2009;110:516-28.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Xia Z, Irwin MG. Esmolol may abolish volatile anesthetic-induced postconditioning by scavenging reactive oxygen species. Anesthesiology 2009;111:924-5.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Nigro Neto C, Landoni G, Cassarà L, De Simone F, Zangrillo A, Tardelli MA, et al. Use of volatile anesthetics during cardiopulmonary bypass: A systematic review of adverse events. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2014;28:84-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Gadani H, Vyas A. Anesthetic gases and global warming: Potentials, prevention and future of anesthesia. Anesth Essays Res 2011;5:5-10.  Back to cited text no. 20
  [Full text]  
21.
Yasny JS, White J. Environmental implications of anesthetic gases. Anesth Prog 2012;59:154-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Balaji Kuppuswamy
Department of Anaesthesia, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aca.ACA_96_17

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8], [Table 9], [Table 10], [Table 11], [Table 2], [Table 13], [Table 2]



 

Top